The Twelfth Planet : Book I of the Earth Chronicles

[Reina]

I posed a question on another message board asking if they thought we were alone in the universe. One the board members replied with the following:

Originally posted by L****
I suggest this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038039362X/102-3719050-9000134?v=glance

And u should read about the Mayan Culture. The inventors of the calender among other things we use today. Their calender started thousands of years ago, and ends 2012. And recently we discover a "object behind pluto". Its the planet where the creators derive from.


You can read an editorial review on amazon. From the little bit of reading I did, it sounds pretty far fetched.

Has anyone read this book and if so, what else does the book talk about? I hardly know anything about it, but this guy sounds pretty convinced that we our "creators" come from this planet. :confused: Its amazing how some people just believe everything they read.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Here is a link (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=6617) to one of many threads discussing Mr. Stitchin's ideas.

He seems to believe that there is a planet, called Nibiru, in the outer
reaches of the Solar system, that wanders into the inner Solar system
every 4000 years or so to wreak havoc on the poor little planets there.
Last time around an alien race from that planet, the Anunnaki,
visited ancient Sumer and elevated the local barbarians to civilisation.
Presumably by genetic engineering and introduction off advanced
technologies like writing, farming and bookkeeping.

Then they left again.

[Reina]

I skimmed you thread real quick. I'll read more of it later today. Thanks!

[A.DIM]

I've read all of The Earth Chronicles; 6 books, 2 companion volumes.

If nothing else it will be the best SciFi you've ever read.

But according to Sitchin, the Anunnaki arrived some 450000yrs ago, not on the supposed last pass of Nibiru.

[Fram]

I would call it Fantasy, not SciFi...

[A.DIM]

Well, it does involve ETs so SciFi seems more appropriate...

[Reina]

I read the first page of the other thread so far, people actually believe this?

You know what, I shouldnt pass judgment because I havent yet read teh book. I think im going to order a used copy from amazon, it seems interesting. But these theories Stitchin has seem a little out of this world.

[A.DIM]

Yes, Reina, the only way to know is by actually reading the work.

In my experience, nearly all Sitchin refuters base their opinions on what they've read from websites.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in ATM?

[Maksutov]

I read the first page of the other thread so far, people actually believe this? See the post directly above your post.

You know what, I shouldnt pass judgment because I havent yet read teh book. I think im going to order a used copy from amazon, it seems interesting. But these theories Stitchin has seem a little out of this world.Do critical thinking a favor, and check with your public library first.

The only people who should make money off baloney are butchers.

[algorithms]

A.DIM: "...the only way to know is by actually reading the work."

Why bother? Sitchin is hogwash. It may be entertaining to some folks, but the "work" is a work of fiction, not fact. Mr. Sitchin misrepresents Sumerian culture, ignores known archaeology, and his description of Nibiru defies the physics of celestial mechanics. Its just junk.

For the record, I've read some of his stuff. I found it an intolerable waste of time. Just because someone writes a book and gets it published, doesn't mean its worth reading or has merit. If one really wants to learn about Sumerian culture take a college level class on the subject. I can guarantee that Sitchin's books are not on the reading list. There's a good reason for that. They don't belong there.

[A.DIM]

I'm not interested in "defending" Sitchin's work, but that is a mischaracterization, Algorithms.

Can you show me where he misrepresents Sumerian culture?

Can you show me how he ignores known archeology?

And I realize that his description of Nibiru defies celestial mechanics as we understand them, but IMHO, recent discoveries such as Sedna, DW2004 and others, coupled with work by astronomers such as Matese & Murray, have begun to change that thinking; making more plausible the idea of a "perturber" in our system.

And for the record, I've also read the works of sumerian scholars like S. Kramer and LW King and have found Sitchin to be largely in line with them; aside from considering the Anunnaki (literally translated "those from heaven to earth came") as real flesh and blood beings.

[R.A.F.]

I realize that his description of Nibiru defies celestial mechanics as we understand them...

Which is why this thread belongs in ATM and not in Conspiracy Theories...

[Fram]

Yes, Reina, the only way to know is by actually reading the work.

In my experience, nearly all Sitchin refuters base their opinions on what they've read from websites.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in ATM?

To be precise, my opinion is based on what his own website has to say, what his defenders have to say, and what short bits I have had to read. That is more than enough to draw a conclusion...

[Reina]

See the post directly above your post.

Do critical thinking a favor, and check with your public library first.

The only people who should make money off baloney are butchers.


On my commute over here I figured it would be a better idea to just get it from the library, why spend money.

[Reina]

Which is why this thread belongs in ATM and not in Conspiracy Theories...

Honestly, I wasnt sure which would be the best forum to put this in so I picked this one.

[Fram]

I'm not interested in "defending" Sitchin's work, but that is a mischaracterization, Algorithms.

Can you show me where he misrepresents Sumerian culture?

Can you show me how he ignores known archeology?

And I realize that his description of Nibiru defies celestial mechanics as we understand them, but IMHO, recent discoveries such as Sedna, DW2004 and others, coupled with work by astronomers such as Matese & Murray, have begun to change that thinking; making more plausible the idea of a "perturber" in our system.

And for the record, I've also read the works of sumerian scholars like S. Kramer and LW King and have found Sitchin to be largely in line with them; aside from considering the Anunnaki (literally translated "those from heaven to earth came") as real flesh and blood beings.

Well, he compares our gene pool with that of chimpanzees, and then concludes that the changes have been brought along by the Anunnaki, which first visited us (or changed us) 300,000 years ago. Yet, hominids are much older than that. So the gene difference he gives is highly exaggerated, as he doesn't compare post-Anunnaki humans with pre-Anunnaki humans, but with the much further remote chimpanzees.

Secondly, he uses post-Homer artifacts to show that a pre-Homer Trojan war must have happened, because they depict the same things. While Troy existed and it clearly has seen some wars and desctruction in its history, the method used by Sitchin is completely wrong and illogical. Furthermore, the dates given to the different destructions of Troy do not match his dates for the visits of the Anunnaki, yet he uses it again as proof that they exist and have visited Earth.

[R.A.F.]

Honestly, I wasnt sure which would be the best forum to put this in so I picked this one.

No Problem...I'm just a little bit too "nitpicky" this morning...:)

[Archer17]

.. I realize that his description of Nibiru defies celestial mechanics as we understand them, but IMHO, recent discoveries such as Sedna, DW2004 and others, coupled with work by astronomers such as Matese & Murray, have begun to change that thinking; making more plausible the idea of a "perturber" in our system..Not really. There's a big difference between what Sitchin claims and the recent discovery of small bodies beyond Pluto. I don't need to interpret clay tablets when I say there will be additional discoveries. Your concession that Nibiru defies "celestial mechanics as we understand them" begs the question .. where is CM wrong? Isn't Nibiru, despite it's supposed location in the far reaches of our solar system, supposed to be nice and toasty too? Seems astronomy/science has more than just celestial mechanics to reexamine.

I think before science is asked to rethink their current understanding of things like CM or planetary thermo-geology we should be provided with irrefutable evidence that Sitchin is even on the right track. Since the Annunaki seemed to have cleaned up after themselves before leaving, spotting a large inbound toasty planet or having SETI detect Nibiru's version of "My Favorite Martian" would be a good starter.

[Reina]

Not really. There's a big difference between what Sitchin claims and the recent discovery of small bodies beyond Pluto. I don't need to interpret clay tablets when I say there will be additional discoveries. Your concession that Nibiru defies "celestial mechanics as we understand them" begs the question .. where is CM wrong? Isn't Nibiru, despite it's supposed location in the far reaches of our solar system, supposed to be nice and toasty too? Seems astronomy/science has more than just celestial mechanics to reexamine.

I think before science is asked to rethink their current understanding of things like CM or planetary thermo-geology we should be provided with irrefutable evidence that Sitchin is even on the right track. Since the Annunaki seemed to have cleaned up after themselves before leaving, spotting a large inbound toasty planet or having SETI detect Nibiru's version of "My Favorite Martian" would be a good starter.

I have a question. According to Stichin, where does Nibiru get its climate from? Exactly how can it sustain any heat if it's not near the sun?

Also, did the "creators" create the universe, or only humans on earth?

[R.A.F.]

Exactly how can it sustain any heat if it's not near the sun?

Radioactive elements in Niburu's surface keep it all nice and"toasty"...

Right, A.DIM??

[antoniseb]

If we had a fantasy section I'd have moved this thread there, but lacking that, I've put it in "Against The Mainstream" where people won't mistake it for mainstream research.

[parallaxicality]

My father is a big Sitchin fan. He got me to read the original book. I can't read Sumerian; I know nothing about Near Eastern archaeology; however, only a few pages in, the red flags started raising, as did the "skeptic hairs" on the back of my neck (trusty little buggers, those).

1. Sitchin claims the Greeks believed the Earth was flat, which is flat-out wrong.

2. He claims that we have no theory that adequately explains the origin of the solar system, which is also flat-out wrong.

3. There is no way a planet like Nibiru (which he called Marduk in the first book) could support any kind of life that would be able to survive on our planet, since a) life on our planet is based on photosynthesis, and photosynthesis is impossible so far from the Sun and b) any beings that evolved to exist so far from the Sun would roast at our room temperature.

4. If the Sumerians learned about the nine planets from the Nibiroonians, why didn't they learn about the Kuiper Belt? Or Sedna? Or the planet bigger than Pluto just recently discovered?

But I'm sure everyone agrees with this. What really gets me about "The 12th Planet" is how utterly, blisteringly, awfully written it is. If A.DIM wishes to defend it as a work of fantasy or sci-fi, he'll have to put forward a case that takes into account wordcrafting of "L. Ron Hubbard" levels of ineptness. PUTTING WORDS RANDOMLY IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND ITALICS AND ENDING ALL OF YOUR SENTENCES IN EXCLAMATION POINTS IS NOT A GOOD FORM OF EMPHASIS!!!

Oh, and intriguingly suggestive concordances are not ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIVE PROOF!!

[A.DIM]

I suppose if we're to discuss this the least one should know would come from Sitchin's website (http://www.sitchin.com/), but I must emphasize that his work is far more than a collection of articles on the internet.

Also, Zecharia Sitchin and a New Synthesis (http://www.banned-books.com/1997archive/124_1/36_zecharia.html) is the most accurate description of his work I've read.

[A.DIM]

To be precise, my opinion is based on what his own website has to say, what his defenders have to say, and what short bits I have had to read. That is more than enough to draw a conclusion...

And my opinion is based on much more than what his website says, than what proponents say, than what skeptics say...

... but I allow you your opinion, Fram; I just don't see how one could draw a conclusion without having read the work itself.

[Fram]

Perhaps it's a wonderful work of science and both his own website, and the heralds of his ideas around here, are very lousy defenders of it.
If you or anyone else can give me some claims he makes, some examples he gives, that would seem challenging, interesting, and scientific, I might get interested in reading more of his work. For now, all I see is a load of fiction, some very dubious methods and claims, and the original parts I've seen are poorly written as well.

[A.DIM]

I'm nont sure how this response addresses the quoted post, but...

Well, he compares our gene pool with that of chimpanzees, and then concludes that the changes have been brought along by the Anunnaki, which first visited us (or changed us) 300,000 years ago. Yet, hominids are much older than that. So the gene difference he gives is highly exaggerated, as he doesn't compare post-Anunnaki humans with pre-Anunnaki humans, but with the much further remote chimpanzees.

The entire first chapter of TTP, titled "The Endless Beginning," deals with the evolution of the hominid species and the resultant homosapiens, so I gather your opinion here is based on articles from his website
egThe Case of Adam's Alien Genes (http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm)?
Or his Genetics (http://www.sitchin.com/genetics.htm) article?
Or the Did Adam Have Three Parents (http://www.sitchin.com/adamgene.htm) article?

IMO, nothing in these is terribly out of line with current genetics.

But what's your take on the genes with no predecessors, some of which are unique to humans?

Secondly, he uses post-Homer artifacts to show that a pre-Homer Trojan war must have happened, because they depict the same things. While Troy existed and it clearly has seen some wars and desctruction in its history, the method used by Sitchin is completely wrong and illogical. Furthermore, the dates given to the different destructions of Troy do not match his dates for the visits of the Anunnaki, yet he uses it again as proof that they exist and have visited Earth.

I think the point of his "Troy" article (he barely touches on it in TEC) is to show how modern scholarship essentially accepts everything about Troy as factual except "the god's" involvement.

[R.A.F.]

I just don't see how one could draw a conclusion without having read the work itself.

I don't need to read Sitchin to know that his "Niburu" would have to be awfully cold during most of it's "supposed" orbit...in other words, what is your answer to Reina's question?...

According to Stichin, where does Nibiru get its climate from? Exactly how can it sustain any heat if it's not near the sun?

[A.DIM]

Not really. There's a big difference between what Sitchin claims and the recent discovery of small bodies beyond Pluto. I don't need to interpret clay tablets when I say there will be additional discoveries. Your concession that Nibiru defies "celestial mechanics as we understand them" begs the question .. where is CM wrong? Isn't Nibiru, despite it's supposed location in the far reaches of our solar system, supposed to be nice and toasty too? Seems astronomy/science has more than just celestial mechanics to reexamine.

I agree, Science/Astronomy does have more to reexamine, but I can't tell you where CM is wrong.

I think before science is asked to rethink their current understanding of things like CM or planetary thermo-geology we should be provided with irrefutable evidence that Sitchin is even on the right track. Since the Annunaki seemed to have cleaned up after themselves before leaving, spotting a large inbound toasty planet or having SETI detect Nibiru's version of "My Favorite Martian" would be a good starter.

IMO, that "evidence" for Sitchin being on the right track is found in his books, coupled with recent discoveries.

[parallaxicality]

Sitchin answers that in "The 12th Planet"; he says the planet gets its heat from volcanic outgassing, though he doesn't call it that. But then he goes on to say that the planet is "green", and "verdant," which makes no sense in a world where photosynthesis is impossible.

[Daffy]

I read a book in the early 1970s, where some guy claimed that aliens from the 12th planet created us. They contacted the author to complain about (among other things) rock and roll music and the fact that young people were not dancing the way their elders used to in the 1940s (I'm serious). Does anyone know if this was written by Sitchin?

I mean, even at 15 years old I knew it was a load of what they use to grow turnips. I actually laughed out loud...and it was filed in the science section of the public library!

[Fram]

I'm nont sure how this response addresses the quoted post, but...

The entire first chapter of TTP, titled "The Endless Beginning," deals with the evolution of the hominid species and the resultant homosapiens, so I gather your opinion here is based on articles from his website
egThe Case of Adam's Alien Genes (http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm)?
Or his Genetics (http://www.sitchin.com/genetics.htm) article?
Or the Did Adam Have Three Parents (http://www.sitchin.com/adamgene.htm) article?

IMO, nothing in these is terribly out of line with current genetics.

But what's your take on the genes with no predecessors, some of which are unique to humans?

No idea, I don't claim to have an answer to everything. I try to restrict myself to those items I can answer, and in these cases, I don't agree with him.
The problem with his chimpanzee example is that he uses it as evidence that we must have been genetically manufactured, as the difference is too big to be explained otherwise. But we are no descendants from chimpanzees, so to use the difference between us and them as evidence is a logical fallacy.


I think the point of his "Troy" article (he barely touches on it in TEC) is to show how modern scholarship essentially accepts everything about Troy as factual except "the god's" involvement.

I guess we can now start a discussion about the meaning of the word 'essentially'... Almost every part of the Troy legend is doubted still, except that Troy existed and that it is probable that the Greek (or more precisely, some Greek tribe) have fought against it. I seriously doubt many modern scholars accept everything except the Gods as fact.

[R.A.F.]

Isn't Nibiru, despite it's supposed location in the far reaches of our solar system, supposed to be nice and toasty too?

I hadn't noticed that Archer had posted "the question" also...so what is your answer, A.DIM???

[Archer17]

I agree, Science/Astronomy does have more to reexamine, but I can't tell you where CM is wrong.So I guess reading his books wouldn't help with that.IMO, that "evidence" for Sitchin being on the right track is found in his books, coupled with recent discoveries.
It all boils down to this: Since the Annunaki left and took their planet with them, what's to reexamine? One doesn't reexamine various facets of accepted mainstream thinking (CM for instance) just because someone proposes a scenario that violates them. The "recent discoveries," I assume you are referring to the small "planets" out beyond Pluto, are not the Nibiru of Sitchin. I can see why you invoke things like Sedna's orbit but that in itself is not the "smoking gun" needed to legitimize a Nibiru out there somewhere.

I'm skeptical of anyone that makes claims based on their own interpretations of ancient scribbling and it's not just confined to Sitchin. I even question the "mainstream" thinking regarding the pyramids of Egypt. It's not that I think they were built by aliens, I just am skeptical that we know all we could know about the subject. When, why, and even how are open to interpretation. I think the only thing that would make me consider Sitchin's claims would be the discovery of extraterrestrial artifacts on Earth, the discovery of an inhabited planet out beyond the orbit of Pluto, or Annunaki "litter" found on the moon or other bodies in our solar system.

[Jim]

Hmm, no one has addressed this so far:

Originally posted by L****
And u should read about the Mayan Culture. The inventors of the calender among other things we use today. Their calender started thousands of years ago, and ends 2012.

That's like saying our calendar ends in December. Actually, it just starts over again.

And so does the Mayan calendar. L**** should read about Mayan culture.

[A.DIM]

I have a question. According to Stichin, where does Nibiru get its climate from? Exactly how can it sustain any heat if it's not near the sun?

Good question.
Sitchin suggests Nibiru, being described as "radiant," possesses some geothermal mechanism which gives it an atmosphere.
He deals with it in Genesis Revisited but mine is on loan and so I can't provide exactly what he says at this time.

Also, did the "creators" create the universe, or only humans on earth?

The Anunnaki, "the gods" of ancient religion and myth, took a "creature.... who exists" and bound upon it "the image of the gods."
In other words, ETs genetically modified a preexisting hominid.

[Fram]

One of the major pieces of evidence for Nibiru being real is that the Sumerians had poems and depictions of the solar system showing (or telling about) all planets including Pluto, plus the extra one Nibiru.

What is your (or Sitchins') explanation for the fact that they didn't know or tell about those other objects, like Sedna or the new-found "tenth planet", which are fairly similar to Pluto and equally invisible to humans?

[A.DIM]

My father is a big Sitchin fan. He got me to read the original book. I can't read Sumerian; I know nothing about Near Eastern archaeology; however, only a few pages in, the red flags started raising, as did the "skeptic hairs" on the back of my neck (trusty little buggers, those).

1. Sitchin claims the Greeks believed the Earth was flat, which is flat-out wrong.

2. He claims that we have no theory that adequately explains the origin of the solar system, which is also flat-out wrong.

3. There is no way a planet like Nibiru (which he called Marduk in the first book) could support any kind of life that would be able to survive on our planet, since a) life on our planet is based on photosynthesis, and photosynthesis is impossible so far from the Sun and b) any beings that evolved to exist so far from the Sun would roast at our room temperature.

4. If the Sumerians learned about the nine planets from the Nibiroonians, why didn't they learn about the Kuiper Belt? Or Sedna? Or the planet bigger than Pluto just recently discovered?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but none of these points is even touched on in the first few pages.

1. Wrong. Sitchin shows how the Greeks in fact possessed knowledge of a spherical earth and shows how the Greeks themselves claimed such knowledge came from the Chaldeans. aka. babylonians/sumerians.

2. I know of nowhere he claims there is "no theory" that adequately explains
the origin of the solar system; citation, please?

3. The babylonians called it Marduk, not Sitchin.
But I have to agree with the notion that an ET should find it difficult existing in earth's atmosphere; although, if Nibiru and Earth share the same "seed of Life" I suspect evolved creatures on each of these worlds could be more compatible/ adaptable with the other. IMHO, of course.

4. This question, IMO, shows a lack of understanding of the Enuma Elish and the subsequent importance of the number twelve. According to this ancient text there were twelve primary characters, "gods" if you will, who were in some way affected by the "celestial battle." I doubt that in conveying such knowledge the Anunnaki considered Saturn's rings, Sedna, the kuiper belt, et al, as important as the primary "gods."

But I'm sure everyone agrees with this. What really gets me about "The 12th Planet" is how utterly, blisteringly, awfully written it is. If A.DIM wishes to defend it as a work of fantasy or sci-fi, he'll have to put forward a case that takes into account wordcrafting of "L. Ron Hubbard" levels of ineptness. PUTTING WORDS RANDOMLY IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND ITALICS AND ENDING ALL OF YOUR SENTENCES IN EXCLAMATION POINTS IS NOT A GOOD FORM OF EMPHASIS!!!

INDEED!

But I've just thumbed through several hundred pages of several different TEC books and have yet to find somewhere Sitchin even used an exclamation point, not to mention CAPS.
Can you back up any of these claims here or am I faced with yet another uninformed dismissal?

Oh, and intriguingly suggestive concordances are not ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIVE PROOF!!

And I'm not suggesting as much, but thereto, I think it would be prudent to gain some real insight into the work before making such claims as those above.

[Reina]

Hmm, no one has addressed this so far:

Originally posted by L****
And u should read about the Mayan Culture. The inventors of the calender among other things we use today. Their calender started thousands of years ago, and ends 2012.

That's like saying our calendar ends in December. Actually, it just starts over again.

And so does the Mayan calendar. L**** should read about Mayan culture.

L***** made yet another comment saying something that we should all pack our bags because the world is going to end in 2012. I told him he needs to stop jocking that book and do some research.

He is basing all these claims based on one book, which I think is crazy. If a scientist wrote a book claiming that the earth was triangular, I wouldnt just automatically believe it because s/he says they have studied the earth and know its triangular. I would need to see the research of other scientist who actually back this up and then I'd make my own judgment on the matter. Another case of people believing everything they read.

[Reina]

Sitchin answers that in "The 12th Planet"; he says the planet gets its heat from volcanic outgassing, though he doesn't call it that. But then he goes on to say that the planet is "green", and "verdant," which makes no sense in a world where photosynthesis is impossible.

Right, which is what I'm trying to get at. How can a planet that far out have "green" plants without photosynthesis?

[Fram]

4. This question, IMO, shows a lack of understanding of the Enuma Elish and the subsequent importance of the number twelve. According to this ancient text there were twelve primary characters, "gods" if you will, who were in some way affected by the "celestial battle." I doubt that in conveying such knowledge the Anunnaki considered Saturn's rings, Sedna, the kuiper belt, et al, as important as the primary "gods."


This wasn't a response to me, but the question asked was similar enough, so...
A.DIM, you are making a circular reasonoing here. The very reason given for the importance of the number twelve is the twelve 'gods', which are equal to the twelve heavenly bodies. You / Sitchin have made the equality between the gods and the planets a crucial point of the theory (remember the need to read the Enuma Elish literally?).
Now, it turns out that there are no twelve heavenly bodies with special characteristics, as Pluto is in no way different from Sedna or Planet Ten, and is equally invisible to the humans.
So why then is Pluto counted, and the other ones not?

[A.DIM]

No idea, I don't claim to have an answer to everything. I try to restrict myself to those items I can answer, and in these cases, I don't agree with him.
The problem with his chimpanzee example is that he uses it as evidence that we must have been genetically manufactured, as the difference is too big to be explained otherwise. But we are no descendants from chimpanzees, so to use the difference between us and them as evidence is a logical fallacy.

I think the point is to show how all things have the same basic genetic code and how homosapiens is an anomoly, in comparison to our closest "relatives" even.

But to me the central point of the article is this:

It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.

How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”

In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.

[QUOTEI guess we can now start a discussion about the meaning of the word 'essentially'... Almost every part of the Troy legend is doubted still, except that Troy existed and that it is probable that the Greek (or more precisely, some Greek tribe) have fought against it. I seriously doubt many modern scholars accept everything except the Gods as fact.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the story Troy is likely a far older story derived from the Hittites.

Troy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy)

But I'll concur that the historicity is still up for debate.

[R.A.F.]

Now, it turns out that there are no twelve heavenly bodies with special characteristics, as Pluto is in no way different from Sedna or Planet Ten, and is equally invisible to the humans.
So why then is Pluto counted, and the other ones not?

IMO the answer is obvious...Sitchin didn't know about Sedna, etc. so there was no "need" to have the annanki mention them.

If he were to re-write The 12th Planet today, I'm sure he would "include" these objects...

Hindsight is always 20/20...

So A.DIM...are you ever going to answer Reina's question???

[A.DIM]

Right, which is what I'm trying to get at. How can a planet that far out have "green" plants without photosynthesis?

That is another of Paralaxicality's claims I must call into question.
I don't recall it ever being described as "green."
Actually, red is what I remember Sitchin suggesting, which makes more sense since "Marduk" has been interpreted as both Mars and Jupiter.

But again, I can't say by what mechanism Nibiru would have an atmosphere capable of supporting advanced life.
Geothermal heating and perhaps some sort of tidal heating?

[R.A.F.]

I was posting my last post while you were posting yours...

I can't say by what mechanism Nibiru would have an atmosphere capable of supporting advanced life.

Now we're getting somewhere...you accept it, yet you can't explain it...

[A.DIM]

This wasn't a response to me, but the question asked was similar enough, so...
A.DIM, you are making a circular reasonoing here. The very reason given for the importance of the number twelve is the twelve 'gods', which are equal to the twelve heavenly bodies. You / Sitchin have made the equality between the gods and the planets a crucial point of the theory (remember the need to read the Enuma Elish literally?).
Now, it turns out that there are no twelve heavenly bodies with special characteristics, as Pluto is in no way different from Sedna or Planet Ten, and is equally invisible to the humans.
So why then is Pluto counted, and the other ones not?

Pluto is GaGa in the Enuma Elish, at first only an emissary (satellite) of Kishar (Saturn, I think) and Marduk (Nibiru) perturbed its orbit and established for it a new "destiny" (orbit) "in the deep."

Simply put, I'd say that is why Pluto and not the others is included.

[A.DIM]

I was posting my last post while you were posting yours...

Yes, and making an unfounded suggestion in regards the "Pluto included" issue.

Now we're getting somewhere...you accept it, yet you can't explain it...

Right, and I can't explain why you would cut out what I did suggest as possible explanations. eg Geothermal & Tidal heating - two working theories.

So what's your point about "getting somewhere?"

[Archer17]

Uh, two things:..In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.Are you an expert in biology/genome sequencing A.DIM? I'm asking because you seem to be making a rather bold corollary here and I don't think you have Mr. Scherer's qualifications to imply he's helping your case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware alien genetic manipulation is the current trend in evolutionary thought.Pluto is GaGa in the Enuma Elish, at first only an emissary (satellite) of Kishar (Saturn, I think) and Marduk (Nibiru) perturbed its orbit and established for it a new "destiny" (orbit) "in the deep."Does Sitchin explain how Nibiru seems to have played selective billiards here, or is this an other example of where we have to reexamine our understanding of things like celestial mechanics just to make it work? :think:

[Fram]

So a quite unremarkable satellite of Saturn (by far not the biggest one) turns into a KBO (and again, apparently not a very special one), and that is the reason it is one of the twelve major gods of the Sumerians, even though they have never seen it and it has no other relevance?
So for some reason Pluto was extra special to the Annunaki, making it necessary to include it in the pantheon of the Sumerians as knowledge they certainly needed to have.

No, I'm still not convinced.

[Reina]

Ive been trying to get through the thread that Halcyon Days posted, just finished the second page. It made me think of something though.

Wouldn't the Annunaki be comparable to say, the Graeco-Roman gods? I mean people wrote countless stories about them, but does that make it true? There are famous books, like the Odyssey, depicting a wondrous tale, but did it really happen? No. So why would these "creators" of the sumerians be any different?

[R.A.F.]

...making an unfounded suggestion in regards the "Pluto included" issue.

You mean this...

...Sitchin didn't know about Sedna, etc. so there was no "need" to have the annanki mention them.

If he were to re-write The 12th Planet today, I'm sure he would "include" these objects...

How is that "unfounded?" It's perfectly reasonable given the state of astronomical knowledge when Sitchin wrote The 12th Planet.

I can't explain why you would cut out what I did suggest as possible explanations. eg Geothermal & Tidal heating - two working theories.

Why? Because these "working theories" are simply not viable explanations...they are an "attempt" at explaning Niburu...and as such, they show that Sitchin has no idea what the science behind planetary environments actually is.

So what's your point about "getting somewhere?"

The point is that you are accepting Sitchin' "theories" as a "template" for your ideas....your ideas are not based on objective evidence.

I can't say by what mechanism Nibiru would have an atmosphere capable of supporting advanced life.

That mechanism would be the science, the explanation that is absolutely necessary to show that Sitchin knows what he is talking about...

Geothermal heating and perhaps some sort of tidal heating?

Please demonstrate how such geothermal/tidal heating would result in an environment capable of supporting an advanced technological society.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Please demonstrate how such geothermal/tidal heating would result in an environment capable of supporting an advanced technological society.An advanced technological society by definition adapts the environment to its needs.
However, bringing forth such a civilisation would require far more benign
circumstances than are now possible on such an hypothetical planet.

So either the (hypothetical) Niburians did not originate on Niburu, or
the planet itself must have had a different orbit in the past.
This thing gets more convoluted the more you think about it. :think:

[Fram]

An interesting online paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone1/) concerning the 223 "missing" genes from the human genome, which are used as another piece of evidence by Sitchin for the making of humans by the Anunnaki. Still early days and inconclusive, but progress towards a scientific explanation is being made (paper is from 2001, so newer findings may be available).

[A.DIM]

Uh, two things:Are you an expert in biology/genome sequencing A.DIM? I'm asking because you seem to be making a rather bold corollary here and I don't think you have Mr. Scherer's qualifications to imply he's helping your case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware alien genetic manipulation is the current trend in evolutionary thought.

No, Archer, I'm no expert, but does that make Sherer's remarks about such genetic anomolies any less pertinent?

And you're right: the idea that homosapiens is a genetically altered species is far from a trend in evolutionary thought.

Does Sitchin explain how Nibiru seems to have played selective billiards here, or is this an other example of where we have to reexamine our understanding of things like celestial mechanics just to make it work? :think:

Sure he does, but its not really "selective billiards," as you put it.

Yes, having a large planetary body on a highly elliptical orbit which approaches from beneath the ecliptic and crossing (pun intended) it somewhere near the asteroid belt at perihelion does require us to reexamine some things.

[A.DIM]

So a quite unremarkable satellite of Saturn (by far not the biggest one) turns into a KBO (and again, apparently not a very special one), and that is the reason it is one of the twelve major gods of the Sumerians, even though they have never seen it and it has no other relevance?
So for some reason Pluto was extra special to the Annunaki, making it necessary to include it in the pantheon of the Sumerians as knowledge they certainly needed to have.

No, I'm still not convinced.

And I don't expect you to be.

But to my knowledge, Pluto is the only "planet" or KBO thought to have formed as a moon or satellite of another planet.
Quite remarkable, IMO.

[A.DIM]

Ive been trying to get through the thread that Halcyon Days posted, just finished the second page. It made me think of something though.

Wouldn't the Annunaki be comparable to say, the Graeco-Roman gods? I mean people wrote countless stories about them, but does that make it true? There are famous books, like the Odyssey, depicting a wondrous tale, but did it really happen? No. So why would these "creators" of the sumerians be any different?


The "Olympian Twelve" is a mesopotamian concept, 12 gods, 12 planets.

Countless parallels can be drawn betwixt the Graeco-Roman pantheons and the more ancient Near East pantheons.

Sitchin deals with this thoroughly but is certainly not the only scholar to have pointed this out.

[Archer17]

No, Archer, I'm no expert, but does that make Sherer's remarks about such genetic anomolies any less pertinent?Actually yes, in your context. The fanciful idea of Annunaki genetic manipulation is your/Sitchin's idea, not Scherer's.And you're right: the idea that homosapiens is a genetically altered species is far from a trend in evolutionary thought.Exactly. Now you already admitted you're not an expert in the field, so why do you suppose those that are don't find this concept of alien genetic manipulation worthy of a trend A.DIM? :think: ..Yes, having a large planetary body on a highly elliptical orbit which approaches from beneath the ecliptic and crossing (pun intended) it somewhere near the asteroid belt at perihelion does require us to reexamine some things.heh ..it's not mainstream science that has to do the "reexamining" here.;)

In a reply to Fram you posted: But to my knowledge, Pluto is the only "planet" or KBO thought to have formed as a moon or satellite of another planet.
Quite remarkable, IMO.This theory fell out of favor a long time ago. The earlier idea that Pluto was a moon of Neptune ran into problems following the discovery of Charon, Pluto's own moon.

[A.DIM]

You mean this...

How is that "unfounded?" It's perfectly reasonable given the state of astronomical knowledge when Sitchin wrote The 12th Planet.

I disagree.
The Enuma Elish would still describe the 12 celestial bodies, or "gods," affected by the "celestial battle;" Sitchin would still have no "need" for the anunnaki to describe them. Rather, were he to rewrite, I imagine he'd discuss them as possibly supporting his thesis.

Why? Because these "working theories" are simply not viable explanations...they are an "attempt" at explaning Niburu...and as such, they show that Sitchin has no idea what the science behind planetary environments actually is.

If you say so, RAF.
From my standpoint I see it that Sitchin began writing TEC in '76 and here we are some 30yrs later making discoveries that, in my mind, lend support to a perturber hypthsesis as well as geothermal heating keeping outer system bodies warmer than once believed possible.
I'm skeptical of anyone who'd claim with such certainty that we already know the science behind planetary environments.
I've read about geothermal heating and the outer planets lately. It's more than "viable," IMO.

The point is that you are accepting Sitchin' "theories" as a "template" for your ideas....your ideas are not based on objective evidence.

I'm considering what Science has discovered in recent years, RAF, and holding it up to what Sitchin wrote 30yrs ago, and I continue to find that his is very plausible scenario.
These are my opinions, of course, but they're based on insight into TEC material coupled with current science, whereas yours appear based on meager understanding TEC and some other "matter of fact" understanding of the state of Science and how it applies to Sitchin.

That mechanism would be the science, the explanation that is absolutely necessary to show that Sitchin knows what he is talking about...

I agree and like I said, from my standpoint, he does.
And again, I don't think enough is known about internal heating mechanisms on outer bodies, or even where Life can gain a foothold, to dismiss this aspect of "what he is talking about."

Please demonstrate how such geothermal/tidal heating would result in an environment capable of supporting an advanced technological society.

I can't.

[A.DIM]

An interesting online paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone1/) concerning the 223 "missing" genes from the human genome, which are used as another piece of evidence by Sitchin for the making of humans by the Anunnaki. Still early days and inconclusive, but progress towards a scientific explanation is being made (paper is from 2001, so newer findings may be available).

Thanks.
I've not been able to find much else either.

But Big Split Over Gene Theory (http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,43888,00.html) suggests there's a rivalry between the two involved teams.
Personally, I'm more inclined to accept the research of a nonprofit organization.
But I agree, too early to tell.

[A.DIM]

Actually yes, in your context. The fanciful idea of Annunaki genetic manipulation is your/Sitchin's idea, not Scherer's.

OK, but Sitchin suggested this some 30yrs ago and here we are now debating current findings that appear to support him.

And IMHO, the idea isn't so "fanciful," as you put it. Perhaps at one time, but here we are now, homosapiens, a space faring species genetically modifying ourselves and other evolved creatures, in essentially the blink of an eye.

Exactly. Now you already admitted you're not an expert in the field, so why do you suppose those that are don't find this concept of alien genetic manipulation worthy of a trend A.DIM? :think:

Well, it appears that as recent as 4yrs ago the discovery of such enigmatic genes was announced. I'd think more earthly assumptions about their origin would be examined first.

heh ..it's not mainstream science that has to do the "reexamining" here.;)

I disagree.
"Mainstream science" is perpetually changing because of reexaming itself. There have been plenty discoveries in recent years that has prompted it to do so, particulary within Astronomy and Astrobiology.

In a reply to Fram you posted: This theory fell out of favor a long time ago. The earlier idea that Pluto was a moon of Neptune ran into problems following the discovery of Charon, Pluto's own moon.

The prevailing theory describes a similar event as that of the earth-moon formation, but the idea that it was first a moon is not disproved. You can still find it discussed as possible. Nonetheless, the prevailing theory for Pluto's origin likewise rings a bell within the Sitchin paradigm.

[Fram]

Thanks.
I've not been able to find much else either.

But Big Split Over Gene Theory (http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,43888,00.html) suggests there's a rivalry between the two involved teams.
Personally, I'm more inclined to accept the research of a nonprofit organization.
But I agree, too early to tell.
Thanks for that link, interesting. For those not reading all links, the non-profit organization is the Human Genome Project, which suggests that we may have gotten some of those 'missing' genes from bacteria, instead of via a common ancestor. Hence their appearance in the human genome and not in other primates or so.

[Fram]

The prevailing theory describes a similar event as that of the earth-moon formation, but the idea that it was first a moon is not disproved. You can still find it discussed as possible. Nonetheless, the prevailing theory for Pluto's origin likewise rings a bell within the Sitchin paradigm.

So either way, Sitchin said it first? That's a lame argument, A.DIM. Either he made a serious claim about the origin of Pluto, and then it can't be interpreted as both, or else he made a vague statement, which adds nothing to his theory as every interpretation is possible.

[Fram]

I disagree.
The Enuma Elish would still describe the 12 celestial bodies, or "gods," affected by the "celestial battle;" Sitchin would still have no "need" for the anunnaki to describe them. Rather, were he to rewrite, I imagine he'd discuss them as possibly supporting his thesis.

You've lost me here. Didn't he describe them as 'possibly supporting his thesis' before? They are the core argument!


From my standpoint I see it that Sitchin began writing TEC in '76 and here we are some 30yrs later making discoveries that, in my mind, lend support to a perturber hypthsesis as well as geothermal heating keeping outer system bodies warmer than once believed possible.


We have discussed the recent findings or hypotheses concerning a perturber before, and they are about a passing star (a singular event, not a regular one). No discoveries lend support to a perturber hypothesis as intended by you and Sitchin.

[Archer17]

OK, but Sitchin suggested this some 30yrs ago and here we are now debating current findings that appear to support him.Speak for yourself A.DIM. There's no growing consensus for ETI genetic modifications of homo sapiens .. period. To imply that this so-called evolutionary "anomaly" helps Sitchin is inaccurate and short-sighted.And IMHO, the idea isn't so "fanciful," as you put it. Perhaps at one time, but here we are now, homosapiens, a space faring species genetically modifying ourselves and other evolved creatures, in essentially the blink of an eye.Depends on the context of those "ideas" you're referring to. I consider Sitchin's claims fanciful, not space travel or genetic engineering per se.Well, it appears that as recent as 4yrs ago the discovery of such enigmatic genes was announced. I'd think more earthly assumptions about their origin would be examined first.I'm not sure you even understand the scientific process based on what you just posted. Why does everything have to be "tidied up" in 4 short years? I'm not all that surprised that we have some additional work to do to explain all facets of evolution and think true scientific investigation, not unique interpretations of ancient clay tablets, is the best way to proceed.I disagree.
"Mainstream science" is perpetually changing because of reexaming itself. There have been plenty discoveries in recent years that has prompted it to do so, particulary within Astronomy and Astrobiology.Yes, but they are a result of finding something that necessitated such modifications in current mainstream thought. Have we found proof of ETI intervention in our ancient past? The existence of Nibiru? No.The prevailing theory describes a similar event as that of the earth-moon formation, but the idea that it was first a moon is not disproved. You can still find it discussed as possible. Nonetheless, the prevailing theory for Pluto's origin likewise rings a bell within the Sitchin paradigm.I don't know if you are just being stubborn here or just don't bother with doing serious research, but the Pluto as "an expelled moon" theory is no longer considered likely by the astronomical community. I strongly urge you familiazie yourself with the current ideas regarding Pluto's formation before you attempt to shoehorn this "planet" into Sitchin's fantasies.

[Archer17]

A.DIM - I held off since this was directed at R.A.F. but I haven't seen him on all day so..

You posted: I've read about geothermal heating and the outer planets lately. It's more than "viable," IMO.

R.A.F. asked: Please demonstrate how such geothermal/tidal heating would result in an environment capable of supporting an advanced technological society.

You replied: I can't.

If you can't , how can you say it's more than viable? :think:

Just how many "planets" have we detected that are nice and toasty in the outer reaches of the solar system?

BTW, this isn't the first gaff from you I read today but Fram beat me to your Sitchin "either way" analogy regarding Pluto so I didn't bother mentioning that in my prior post. You're slipping A.DIM. I'm curious to see what happens when the so-called evolutionary "anomaly" is conclusively determined by experts not to be a result of Annunaki intervention. Will you imply that the results are subterfuge as you did with the followup images of Cydonia? Time will tell ..

One thing is obvious .. Occam's Razor and you have never made an acquaintance. Then again, blind faith was never a synonym for critical thinking.



[Edited once to fix a spelling error that slipped past my trusty ieSpell checker. I've mangled a few words today I've noticed but .. the mangling stops here ;) ]

[A.DIM]

So either way, Sitchin said it first? That's a lame argument, A.DIM.

That's not the argument, Fram.

Either he made a serious claim about the origin of Pluto, and then it can't be interpreted as both, or else he made a vague statement, which adds nothing to his theory as every interpretation is possible.

Sitchin claimed Pluto is a moon of Saturn, according to his interpretations.

I say the prevailing theory still fits Sitchin's thesis.

[A.DIM]

You've lost me here. Didn't he describe them as 'possibly supporting his thesis' before? They are the core argument!

Perhaps it was how I worded it, but I was referring to RAF's alleged need for Sitchin to describe "them" (sedna, KBOs, rings etc.) were he to rewrite TTP.

We have discussed the recent findings or hypotheses concerning a perturber before, and they are about a passing star (a singular event, not a regular one). No discoveries lend support to a perturber hypothesis as intended by you and Sitchin.

IMO, Muller's Nemesis, the perturber of Murray's & Matese's comet studies, as well as Brown's remarks about Sedna leave open the question of whether or not it was a singular event.

[A.DIM]

Speak for yourself A.DIM. There's no growing consensus for ETI genetic modifications of homo sapiens .. period. To imply that this so-called evolutionary "anomaly" helps Sitchin is inaccurate and short-sighted.

Being inaccurate and shortsighted, I do suggest the presence of enigmatic genes supports Sitchin, some 30yrs later.

But I agree, there is no growing consensus for genetic modification by ETI.

But what do you mean by "speak for yourself," Archer? Are you not here debating whether or not such genetic discoveries support Sitchin?

Depends on the context of those "ideas" you're referring to. I consider Sitchin's claims fanciful, not space travel or genetic engineering per se.

Of course, which is a fine example of selective reasoning;
Just like you accept the ETH "out there but not here, not now, not ever" right?

I'm not sure you even understand the scientific process based on what you just posted. Why does everything have to be "tidied up" in 4 short years? I'm not all that surprised that we have some additional work to do to explain all facets of evolution and think true scientific investigation, not unique interpretations of ancient clay tablets, is the best way to proceed.

Who said anything about being "tidied up" Archer?
I made the statement that the enigmatic genes discovery was announced only 4yrs ago and that certainly more mundane explanations will be sought first.

Yes, but they are a result of finding something that necessitated such modifications in current mainstream thought. Have we found proof of ETI intervention in our ancient past? The existence of Nibiru? No.

I don't know if you are just being stubborn here or just don't bother with doing serious research, but the Pluto as "an expelled moon" theory is no longer considered likely by the astronomical community. I strongly urge you familiazie yourself with the current ideas regarding Pluto's formation before you attempt to shoehorn this "planet" into Sitchin's fantasies.

The origin of Pluto Charon remains unanswered, Archer, according to the astronomical community.

[Fram]

Originally Posted by Fram
So either way, Sitchin said it first? That's a lame argument, A.DIM.
That's not the argument, Fram.
Then what is?



Sitchin claimed Pluto is a moon of Saturn, according to his interpretations.

I say the prevailing theory still fits Sitchin's thesis.
And you've stated the same in a reply to Archer.
By the way, the other (now largely discarded) theory about the origin of Pluto was that it was a moon of Neptune, not Saturn. But certainly after the discovery of Charon, and with the knowledge accumulated in the last 30 years, the KBO origin is now the only seriously accepted theory in mainstream science.
The 'escaped Neptune satellite' may still be found one some websites though, like this sloppily edited one (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/pluto.html#c1).
The latest article in Science, january 2005, says that Pluto is probably a KBO (http://www.world-science.net/ScienceNewsBriefs/stories/050128_Pluto's.htm).
On the other hand, Phoebe (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-050605.html), a moon of Saturn, is probably a KBO object (and like the article states, like Pluto).

[R.A.F.]

You mean this...

How is that "unfounded?" It's perfectly reasonable given the state of astronomical knowledge when Sitchin wrote The 12th Planet.



I disagree.
The Enuma Elish would still describe the 12 celestial bodies, or "gods," affected by the "celestial battle;"

I don't really care what the enuma elish "describes". Taking ancient stories at face value is not how science works. The "method" requires that there be corrobrating evidence...where is it???

...were he to rewrite, I imagine he'd discuss them as possibly supporting his thesis.

Oh, I'm certain he would try. :)

Why? Because these "working theories" are simply not viable explanations...they are an "attempt" at explaning Niburu...and as such, they show that Sitchin has no idea what the science behind planetary environments actually is.



If you say so, RAF.

What "I" say is irrelevant...it's what the known science of the outer Solar System demonstrates. It's not enough to say, "science doesn't know everything, so the only alternative is that Sitchin might be right". Sitchin has to "show with evidence" that the idea of inernal heating is viable...not that he'd "like" it to be viable because it would "help" his ideas. That's 2 different things.

From my standpoint I see it that Sitchin began writing TEC in '76 and here we are some 30yrs later making discoveries that, in my mind, lend support to a perturber hypthsesis as well as geothermal heating keeping outer system bodies warmer than once believed possible.
I'm skeptical of anyone who'd claim with such certainty that we already know the science behind planetary environments.
I've read about geothermal heating and the outer planets lately. It's more than "viable," IMO.

That's "grasping at straws" for the sole purpose of bolstering your beliefs in Sitchin's ideas...nothing more.

The point is that you are accepting Sitchin' "theories" as a "template" for your ideas....your ideas are not based on objective evidence.

I'm considering what Science has discovered in recent years, RAF, and holding it up to what Sitchin wrote 30yrs ago, and I continue to find that his is very plausible scenario.
These are my opinions, of course, but they're based on insight into TEC material coupled with current science, whereas yours appear based on meager understanding TEC and some other "matter of fact" understanding of the state of Science and how it applies to Sitchin.

I base my opinion on the current scientific understanding about just how things "work". Not on one man's interpretations of what the ancients "might" have been thinking. One of us is standing in quick-sand.

That mechanism would be the science, the explanation that is absolutely necessary to show that Sitchin knows what he is talking about...

I agree and like I said, from my standpoint, he does.
And again, I don't think enough is known about internal heating mechanisms on outer bodies, or even where Life can gain a foothold, to dismiss this aspect of "what he is talking about."

Wait a minute..."where life can gain a foothold" isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about Sitchin's idea of "internal heating" being enough to evolve and support an advanced civilization.

Please demonstrate how such geothermal/tidal heating would result in an environment capable of supporting an advanced technological society.

I can't.

So you're basically "taking it on faith"...as I always suspected...that's not science.

aside...my posting for the next week or so will be sporadic...family is coming to town.

[Archer17]

Being inaccurate and shortsighted, I do suggest the presence of enigmatic genes supports Sitchin, some 30yrs later..These constant attempts at shoehorning are lame A.DIM. Heck, even space flight is cited by you as "vindication" for Sitchin. Sitchin proposed Annunaki genetic manipulation. This "enigmatic" evolutionary discovery is nothing more than us learning that we have more to learn about evolution. End of story.

Let's cut to the chase .. what you need to do is prove the Annunaki actually exist before we even debate what these mythical beings might or might not have done. I say they don't exist, Nibiru doesn't exist, and Sitchin is nothing more than an ostracized pseudoscience peddler in the mold of Von Daniken.But I agree, there is no growing consensus for genetic modification by ETI.Once again, why do you suppose that's the case? :think: You have no problem quote-mining these experts when you think it helps your Sitchin spiel, right?But what do you mean by "speak for yourself," Archer? Are you not here debating whether or not such genetic discoveries support Sitchin?Am I typing in a foreign language A.DIM.? Do you think that what you "suggest" is speaking for others as well?Of course, which is a fine example of selective reasoning;
Just like you accept the ETH "out there but not here, not now, not ever" right?The so-called "ETH" is your own catch-phrase, not a scientific hypothesis. Speaking of selective reasoning, I don't need UFOs to exist to justify a dogma (Sitchinism) like you do, I judge UFO sightings on their own merits and when it comes to UFOs as ET craft there are none. I never said "never" BTW, but I don't believe if "First Contact" ever happens we'll have to read about it in a book or at UFO web sites.Who said anything about being "tidied up" Archer?
I made the statement that the enigmatic genes discovery was announced only 4yrs ago and that certainly more mundane explanations will be sought first.Why state the obvious A.DIM? My point is that, unlike you, the experts don't see this as a ETI issue. That, and not baseless innuendo from non-experts like you and Sitchin, speaks for itself.The origin of Pluto Charon remains unanswered, Archer, according to the astronomical community.It's obvious that you seriously need to do some legitimate research if you're going to try to venture into mainstream astronomy. Here I was trying to tell you that the Neptune moon theory was passé and you're claiming Pluto came from Saturn! :doh: You do know where Saturn is, right?

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by A.DIM
Being inaccurate and shortsighted, I do suggest the presence of enigmatic genes supports Sitchin, some 30yrs later..

These constant attempts at shoehorning are lame A.DIM. Heck, even space flight is cited by you as "vindication" for Sitchin. Sitchin proposed Annunaki genetic manipulation. This "enigmatic" evolutionary discovery is nothing more than us learning that we have more to learn about evolution. End of story.

It is a given that DNA can occasionally jump species. From Viruses and Some Virus-like Agents (http://www.microbeworld.org/htm/aboutmicro/microbes/types/virus.htm)

Viruses can also influence host genes by where they insert themselves into their host’s DNA. Recent decoding of the human genome shows that viral DNA sequences have been reproducing jointly with our genes for ages.

Note that viruses can "carry" genes with them from one host to another. You had better believe we have a lot to learn about evolution and genetics. It comes down to this: If a specialist could provide specific reasons why these "enigmatic" genes were artificially inserted, I'd say it was interesting enough to warrant further research. At this point, it looks like another "catbox face" to me.

[A.DIM]

Damn guys, yet another scrum?

What gets me about these "discussions" is that I base my opinions on having actually read TEC and how it fits with current science and astronomy.
No matter what I've profered it usually "boils down" to me "data mining, quote mining, cherry picking, shoehorning, grasping at straws" etc all in the name of my supposed "spiel."

Tiresome, to say the least.

But from where are your opinions? Websites? "Skeptics?" The unclear "wishful thinking" of proponents that don't know "how science works?"

Hardly objective analyses of a theory.

And then you'll make matter-of-fact statements about what we "know" (which seems kinda trendy) in regards to the outer solar system as if you're effectively refuting Sitchin?

Current Knowledge of the Solar System and its Implications for Future Solar System Exploration (http://www.aas.org/~dps/decadal/DHS-FINAL-PART-ONE-7-8-02.PDF) makes clear the current state of knowledge, what we know and what we don't know, and in my mind Sitchin's thesis remains intact.

I know you'll not agree, and how could you?

Oh well...

Sorry, Reina, should you, or anyone else, decide to actually read The Twelfth Planet and want to discuss I'll be glad to.
Otherwise, I'm finished here.

[Archer17]

Damn guys, yet another scrum?This isn't exactly GLP A.DIM, did you actually expect yourself to be the Pied-Piper here peddling this nonsense?What gets me about these "discussions" is that I base my opinions on having actually read TEC and how it fits with current science and astronomy.So you read his book. What you haven't done is applied critical thinking to his fantasies, nor have you shown that you have a grasp on mainstream astronomy.No matter what I've profered it usually "boils down" to me "data mining, quote mining, cherry picking, shoehorning, grasping at straws" etc all in the name of my supposed "spiel."It is what you do A.DIM. It's what you have to do in lieu of supplying proof. You left out innuendos of NASA lying BTW.Tiresome, to say the least. No one asked for your Sitchin sermons A.DIM. I'm assuming you hit the submit button voluntarily.But from where are your opinions? Websites? "Skeptics?" The unclear "wishful thinking" of proponents that don't know "how science works?"

Hardly objective analyses of a theory.You have it backwards but then being a Sitchin disciple that's to be expected. Your problem is that you are so unfamiliar with mainstream thinking that I believe you are actually puzzled as to why we don't jump on Sitchin's bandwagon.And then you'll make matter-of-fact statements about what we "know" (which seems kinda trendy) in regards to the outer solar system as if you're effectively refuting Sitchin?Actually it's the other way around .. the burden of proof is on you to qualify Sitchin's pseudoscience and I don't need a lecture about the outer solar system from someone who believes Pluto used to orbit Saturn.Current Knowledge of the Solar System and its Implications for Future Solar System Exploration (http://www.aas.org/~dps/decadal/DHS-FINAL-PART-ONE-7-8-02.PDF) makes clear the current state of knowledge, what we know and what we don't know, and in my mind Sitchin's thesis remains intact.I really don't care what you think A.DIM, your opinions are your own and you are entitled to them. It's when you try to peddle pseudoscience here that we'll cross paths.


Till next time ..

[Fram]

Could you please not give links to 271 page pdf's without a warning. I'm luckily on a fast connection, but not everyone has that advantage.
Do you really expect us to read all of it (it's only chapter 1 of 5, I believe) just to see if there is anything there that might support Sitchin?
A claim, perhaps, that Pluto may have been a moon of Saturn?
I guess not...

[Van Rijn]

What gets me about these "discussions" is that I base my opinions on having actually read TEC and how it fits with current science and astronomy.
No matter what I've profered it usually "boils down" to me "data mining, quote mining, cherry picking, shoehorning, grasping at straws" etc all in the name of my supposed "spiel."


That is pretty much how it comes across, yes. My take on your arguments is that they boil down to: Here is an "anomaly" or something we don't completely understand, therefore it looks like/suggests/is consistent with ETI.


Current Knowledge of the Solar System and its Implications for Future Solar System Exploration (http://www.aas.org/~dps/decadal/DHS-FINAL-PART-ONE-7-8-02.PDF) makes clear the current state of knowledge, what we know and what we don't know, and in my mind Sitchin's thesis remains intact.

I know you'll not agree, and how could you?


This was a long document, but I did scan it. I could have easily missed something, but I have absolutely no idea what part of that document supported Sitchin. Could you provide specifics?

[A.DIM]

This isn't exactly GLP A.DIM, did you actually expect yourself to be the Pied-Piper here peddling this nonsense?

"Pied Piper peddling nonsense," Archer?

So you read his book. What you haven't done is applied critical thinking to his fantasies, nor have you shown that you have a grasp on mainstream astronomy.

Wrong.
I've researched all of TEC and find myself grappling with only a few remaining issues; namely, the "perturber" as part of our system, the ETH and the presence of "Life," and the origin of homosapiens.
Outside of these, I find his work both scholarly and credible.
And as for these few issues: none are yet resolved, whether you agree or not.

It is what you do A.DIM. It's what you have to do in lieu of supplying proof. You left out innuendos of NASA lying BTW.

Well then, you're wrong in assuming I'm attempting to "prove" anything.

And what's the remark about NASA good for? Trying to further characterize me somehow? Isn't that ad hominem? Attacking the person not the material?


No one asked for your Sitchin sermons A.DIM. I'm assuming you hit the submit button voluntarily.

"Sitchin sermons," Archer?

You have it backwards but then being a Sitchin disciple that's to be expected. Your problem is that you are so unfamiliar with mainstream thinking that I believe you are actually puzzled as to why we don't jump on Sitchin's bandwagon.

"Sitchin disciple," Archer?

Actually it's the other way around .. the burden of proof is on you to qualify Sitchin's pseudoscience and I don't need a lecture about the outer solar system from someone who believes Pluto used to orbit Saturn.

Again, you've assumed I'm trying to "prove" something. Either you'll delve into the material yourself and qualify it, or you'll remain uninformed and continue to deride what I know of the work and my opinions on it.

But has it been disproved that Pluto was once a moon?

I really don't care what you think A.DIM, your opinions are your own and you are entitled to them. It's when you try to peddle pseudoscience here that we'll cross paths.

Where have I "peddled pseudoscience" here, Archer?

Till next time ..

Indeed.

And I'm amazed that your attacks on my character and not the material in question

[A.DIM]

Could you please not give links to 271 page pdf's without a warning. I'm luckily on a fast connection, but not everyone has that advantage.
Do you really expect us to read all of it (it's only chapter 1 of 5, I believe) just to see if there is anything there that might support Sitchin?
A claim, perhaps, that Pluto may have been a moon of Saturn?
I guess not...

Sorry about the large PDF, Fram.

Actually, if one reads the first 10 pages or so, paying particular attention to the "Important Questions" along the way, one should realize that not enough is actually known about Pluto / Charon, KBOs and other "primitive" bodies to speak matter of factly about them like some "skeptics" have.

My idea: Pluto formed as a moon and was pulled away by the perturber, struck in the process and shunted outward where it stablized in the resonant binary orbit we see it in today. IMO, this fits with both scenarios for the origin of Pluto as well as stays within Sitchin's paradigm.

[A.DIM]

That is pretty much how it comes across, yes. My take on your arguments is that they boil down to: Here is an "anomaly" or something we don't completely understand, therefore it looks like/suggests/is consistent with ETI.

In order to even examine Sitchin's work one has to allow the ETH.
I do, most don't, and therefore I might come across as "anomaly = ETI" but in no way do I claim such things as "proven."

This was a long document, but I did scan it. I could have easily missed something, but I have absolutely no idea what part of that document supported Sitchin. Could you provide specifics?

As I said above, the first 10 or so pages conveys my intended point about what we know and what we don't know about the outer solar system.

And again, IMO, nothing we "know" has disproven Sitchin's thesis.

[Archer17]

This isn't exactly GLP A.DIM, did you actually expect yourself to be the Pied-Piper here peddling this nonsense? "Pied Piper peddling nonsense," Archer?That's what I wrote.So you read his book. What you haven't done is applied critical thinking to his fantasies, nor have you shown that you have a grasp on mainstream astronomy.Wrong.
I've researched all of TEC and find myself grappling with only a few remaining issues; namely, the "perturber" as part of our system, the ETH and the presence of "Life," and the origin of homosapiens.
Outside of these, I find his work both scholarly and credible.
And as for these few issues: none are yet resolved, whether you agree or not.As I said before, your opinions are one thing .. trying to legitimize them here is another. The problems start when you expect other people to find Sitchin's work "both scholarly and reliable."It is what you do A.DIM. It's what you have to do in lieu of supplying proof. You left out innuendos of NASA lying BTW.Well then, you're wrong in assuming I'm attempting to "prove" anything.Are we going to play more semantical games? You've tried to qualify Sitchin since Day One. Whether you want to claim you "suggest" he's correct as opposed to "try to prove" he's correct (which you know you can't anyway) is irrelevant.. you're his ad man here.And what's the remark about NASA good for? Trying to further characterize me somehow? Isn't that ad hominem? Attacking the person not the material?So, let me get this straight ... you bring up "cherry-picking, "shoehorning, etc etc and when I point out that you left one out, it's an ad hominem? If even describing what you do (implying NASA subterfuge) is considered an ad hominem, then why do you do it?No one asked for your Sitchin sermons A.DIM. I'm assuming you hit the submit button voluntarily."Sitchin sermons," Archer?That's what I wrote.You have it backwards but then being a Sitchin disciple that's to be expected. Your problem is that you are so unfamiliar with mainstream thinking that I believe you are actually puzzled as to why we don't jump on Sitchin's bandwagon."Sitchin disciple," Archer?Going anywhere with this?Actually it's the other way around .. the burden of proof is on you to qualify Sitchin's pseudoscience and I don't need a lecture about the outer solar system from someone who believes Pluto used to orbit Saturn.Again, you've assumed I'm trying to "prove" something. Either you'll delve into the material yourself and qualify it, or you'll remain uninformed and continue to deride what I know of the work and my opinions on it.Sorry, but it doesn't work that way with me. If you post anything that "suggests" Sitchin has merit I will continue to address that. How I respond depends on what you post. That includes your endless attempts to shoehorn mainstream astronomy/science into his pseudoscience nonsense.But has it been disproved that Pluto was once a moon?I've already suggested that you do some serious research regarding current thought on Pluto's origins, especially since you think it came from Saturn, and this is the best you can do? The current consensus is that Pluto is not a former moon. Outside of taking Sitchin at his word, can you tell the audience why you feel this latest consensus is in error? I really don't care what you think A.DIM, your opinions are your own and you are entitled to them. It's when you try to peddle pseudoscience here that we'll cross paths. Where have I "peddled pseudoscience" here, Archer?This is a trick question right? Where haven't you peddled pseudoscience here and on the BABB A.DIM?

[For the sake of those reading this unfamiliar with A.DIM, just do a search of his posts. You'll see nothing but the promotion of Sitchin's ideas running the gamut from ancient ET intervention by the Annunaki, arguments over a "perturber" to qualify his beliefs in Nibiru, artificiality on Mars because Sitchin said so (this includes innuendos of NASA lying about the follow up Cydonia images) and UFOs.]

How many other posts have you made since you joined the BABB that doesn't include what I just mentioned A.DIM?..Till next timeIndeed.

And I'm amazed that your attacks on my character and not the material in questionThis constant martyr complex is lame. While some of the mods may be unfamiliar with our past history, a simple search will show that I attack what you try to promote (Annunaki, Nibiru, NASA subterfuge re:Cydonia, etc) and the methods you use (net-mining, cherry-picking, quote-mining, etc) in lieu of providing actual proof. These methods, like quote-mining Sherer earlier in the thread to promote Sitchin's claims of ETI genetic manipulation, are fair game A.DIM.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn
That is pretty much how it comes across, yes. My take on your arguments is that they boil down to: Here is an "anomaly" or something we don't completely understand, therefore it looks like/suggests/is consistent with ETI.

In order to even examine Sitchin's work one has to allow the ETH.
I do, most don't, and therefore I might come across as "anomaly = ETI" but in no way do I claim such things as "proven."


Yes, I was careful not to say "prove." But it is clear to me that you believe in ETI.


As I said above, the first 10 or so pages conveys my intended point about what we know and what we don't know about the outer solar system.

And again, IMO, nothing we "know" has disproven Sitchin's thesis.

:doh: This demonstrates my point. I know this "disproof" error was discussed in the "Catbox" thread. A.Dim: I tell you there is an invisible elf in my backyard. Based on what we "know," disprove it. I assure you that I can find any number of books about elves, rings of invisibility and magic. I can point to any number of scientific references that demonstrate we don't know everything about the physical world.

This is a serious question: How would you disprove my "invisible elf" thesis?

You are the one making an extremely unlikely assertion. Saying "we don't know everything" doesn't make it any more likely that Pluto was a moon of Saturn. Pointing to references that have nothing to do with Sitchin's thesis only harms your position. You have the burden of proof.

[Fram]

Sorry about the large PDF, Fram.

Actually, if one reads the first 10 pages or so, paying particular attention to the "Important Questions" along the way, one should realize that not enough is actually known about Pluto / Charon, KBOs and other "primitive" bodies to speak matter of factly about them like some "skeptics" have.

My idea: Pluto formed as a moon and was pulled away by the perturber, struck in the process and shunted outward where it stablized in the resonant binary orbit we see it in today. IMO, this fits with both scenarios for the origin of Pluto as well as stays within Sitchin's paradigm.

No, this fits one scenario for the origin of Pluto (how does this fit the KBO origin?), and that is the least likely of the two. And how does it stay within Sitchin's "paradigm" if he says it is a moon of Saturn? A paradigm shift, perhaps?

[A.DIM]

Yes, I was careful not to say "prove." But it is clear to me that you believe in ETI.

"Believe"? Nah.
Think it most likely? Indeed.
And what's wrong with that?
The ETH is a fundamental part of astronomy.

:doh: This demonstrates my point. I know this "disproof" error was discussed in the "Catbox" thread. A.Dim: I tell you there is an invisible elf in my backyard. Based on what we "know," disprove it. I assure you that I can find any number of books about elves, rings of invisibility and magic. I can point to any number of scientific references that demonstrate we don't know everything about the physical world.

This is a serious question: How would you disprove my "invisible elf" thesis?

If you put together a well researched body of work, citing those references, I'd start with actually reading the material (rather than take it on your word).

But my point was that some "skeptics" in "debunking" speak matter of factly based on "trends" and what's popular when the actual science shows we don't yet have enough info to do so.

You are the one making an extremely unlikely assertion. Saying "we don't know everything" doesn't make it any more likely that Pluto was a moon of Saturn. Pointing to references that have nothing to do with Sitchin's thesis only harms your position. You have the burden of proof.

The reference was provided outside of Sitchin to show how wrong some skeptics claims are that we "know" Pluto didn't form as a moon.

As for me? I can't prove Pluto formed as a moon, but more importantly, I can't disprove it either.

[A.DIM]

No, this fits one scenario for the origin of Pluto (how does this fit the KBO origin?), and that is the least likely of the two. And how does it stay within Sitchin's "paradigm" if he says it is a moon of Saturn? A paradigm shift, perhaps?

Not really.
While Pluto is thought of as a KBO it is still likened to Triton, a moon.
I suspect we'll discover it to have formed as a moon, then pulled away and struck by the perturber that left it in its current binary orbit.

Scientists Discover Pluto Kin Is a Member of Saturn Family (http://www.physorg.com/news4005.html).

Now, I realize this suggests that Phoebe is a captured KBO but is it still possible that Pluto instead is an escaped moon?

[Archer17]

No, this fits one scenario for the origin of Pluto (how does this fit the KBO origin?), and that is the least likely of the two. And how does it stay within Sitchin's "paradigm" if he says it is a moon of Saturn? A paradigm shift, perhaps?Not really.
While Pluto is thought of as a KBO it is still likened to Triton, a moon.
I suspect we'll discover it to have formed as a moon, then pulled away and struck by the perturber that left it in its current binary orbit.

Scientists Discover Pluto Kin Is a Member of Saturn Family (http://www.physorg.com/news4005.html).

Now, I realize this suggests that Phoebe is a captured KBO but is it still possible that Pluto instead is an escaped moon?If it was, how come you weren't able to post a link to that? Your Phoebe link is "apples and oranges" and has nothing to do with Pluto.The intimation that since a moon of Saturn is believed to be a captured KBO, the opposite therefore must be seriously considered is flawed reasoning. As I've said more than once, Pluto was formerly believed to be an escaped moon from Neptune and current thought has it that this "planet" is a KBO. Astronomers are aware of the similarities between Pluto and Triton but Charon (moon of Pluto) was the 'fly in the ointment' for the "Pluto as former moon of Neptune" scenario. I've done some digging myself since this thread started and find it's virtually impossible to miss this, yet you continue to push the Pluto from Saturn angle. That's just a refusal to be objective here A.DIM. This kind of selective research might explain why you find Sitchin credible, but it's not sufficient to demonstrate how an objective examination of Pluto's origins would support Sitchin in any way.

For Sitchin to look like he's on the right track here you must not only demonstrate that Pluto was a moon .. but that it was a former moon of Saturn. That's where the case has to be made. To put the onus on "skeptics" to "disprove that" brings us back to Van Rijn's "invisible elf" corollary.

[A.DIM]

If it was, how come you weren't able to post a link to that? Your Phoebe link is "apples and oranges" and has nothing to do with Pluto.The intimation that since a moon of Saturn is believed to be a captured KBO, the opposite therefore must be seriously considered is flawed reasoning. As I've said more than once, Pluto was formerly believed to be an escaped moon from Neptune and current thought has it that this "planet" is a KBO. Astronomers are aware of the similarities between Pluto and Triton but Charon (moon of Pluto) was the 'fly in the ointment' for the "Pluto as former moon of Neptune" scenario. I've done some digging myself since this thread started and find it's virtually impossible to miss this, yet you continue to push the Pluto from Saturn angle. That's just a refusal to be objective here A.DIM. This kind of selective research might explain why you find Sitchin credible, but it's not sufficient to demonstrate how an objective examination of Pluto's origins would support Sitchin in any way.

For Sitchin to look like he's on the right track here you must not only demonstrate that Pluto was a moon .. but that it was a former moon of Saturn. That's where the case has to be made. To put the onus on "skeptics" to "disprove that" brings us back to Van Rijn's "invisible elf" corollary.

You're right, Archer, I can't even prove Pluto was a moon.

And the "saturn angle" is a stretch, I agree, but I've not "refused" to discuss the original idea that it was from Neptune; I thought it was a given as far as theories about Pluto's origin go.
And I thought we were discussing Sitchin's interpretation; I should add that I don't say he's 100% accurate anyhow. After all, he is dealing in Religious and Mythic texts.

Nonetheless, I realize how little we actually know about Pluto Charon to speak matter of factly one way or another and get frustrated hearing such things combined with... well, you might know "where I'm going" with this...

Sorry.